remember you link about the Android malware only amounting to 0.0001% of downloads.
recall we concluded that 0.0001% figure in the article was actually the amount of people who choose to do nothing after being warned by Google that they detected malware on their devices. Do you agree that your claim that only 0.0001% of Android downloads have malware was purposely taken out of context?
remember you link about the Android malware only amounting to 0.0001% of downloads.
recall we concluded that 0.0001% figure in the article was actually the amount of people who choose to do nothing after being warned by Google that they detected malware on their devices. Do you agree that your claim that only 0.0001% of Android downloads have malware was purposely taken out of context? Or do we need to review that thread and article again?
either you misread it, or our purposely took things out of context. Your choice. But I give you the benefit of that doubt that you actually read it, are intelligent and know exactly what you are doing.
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
remember you link about the Android malware only amounting to 0.0001% of downloads.
recall we concluded that 0.0001% figure in the article was actually the amount of people who choose to do nothing after being warned by Google that they detected malware on their devices. Do you agree that your claim that only 0.0001% of Android downloads have malware was purposely taken out of context?
Yes I do. Which of my comments about the articles statistics was taken out-of-context to be misleading? I think you should review that thread again.
Well, you could just make stuff up to accuse another member of and be done with it I suppose It was your claim of dishonesty on my part, If you can't back that up. . .
How is what they asked for in any way relevant to the decision the jury handed down? Apple was awarded 782x more than Samsung and you are trying to say they are equally guilty. I think your math is way more wrong than you're grasping at trying to say mine is. (It is becoming apparent that you know you are wrong and really are running out of legs to stand on in the argument. Is Samsung paying you to come on here and defend them in any way possible?)
An interesting argument, but I think it is exactly what Samsung was looking for in their countersuit. Guilt is binary. You are either guilty of infringing or you are not. Samsung was found guilty of infringing on Apple's patents. Apple was found guilty of infringing on Samsung's patents. They are both guilty of patent infringement. That is what Samsung wanted to establish.
Samsung didn't add a $6 million countersuit because they are worried about $6 million in a $2.2 billion suit. Without the countersuit the whole focus would have been along the lines of "Samsung is GUILTY, therefore they must pay what we are asking- 2.2 billion!"
The suit changed the argument from that to- well Samsung is GUILTY and Apple is also GUILTY. Do they each owe each other $2.2 billion because they are both GUILTY? No. The patents have a worth, and that worth needs to be determined.
Both sides stole from each other. Samsung stole property with higher value and so had to pay higher damages.
Forcing the jury to deliberate *value* instead of just INNOCENCE or GUILT was the primary purpose. I think the real hope from Samsung was that Apple would dispute the validity of Samsung's patents in which case Samsung would have gone to town on Apple's patents. They would have been in the tremendous position of Apple's own lawyers arguing that the patent process isn't exhaustive or infallible. Fortunately for Apple their lawyers are smarter than that- but without disputing the patents it did open the door to the lesser evil of having to allow Apple's infringement to be established.
In the end I think you can choose to look at the verdict alot like the iPhone 5c.
You can take the 'Wall Street' approach and consider the verdict a failure. Making $199,000,000 is a big letdown when you are projecting to make $2,200,000,000.
Or you can take the DED approach and consider it a huge win. $199,000,000 stomps the competition's amount into the ground by a factor of 782 times, therefore its a huge success.
Personally I think the decision is pretty fair. Samsung is guilty and has to pay a pretty sizeable chunk of dough. Slide to unlock is pretty nifty, but not worth 10% of a phone's price (or even 1%).
You're a smart guy. So is Eric. Of course you should be reading them if you have doubts. That's why they are there.
thanks for the complement. Actually the difference between you and I is that I am fully aware that there are plenty of people smarter than I. When I am wrong, I am quick to admit it here and don't try to take things out of context, split hairs or attempt to weasel my way in some hope into winning some pointless debate. I don't try to play dummy, holding an ace in by back pocket, trying to lure people in traps either. When I am wrong, I admit it. and say sorry, I was wrong. Give it a try. You don't have to be right all the time. Just honest. IMHO, you would get a lot more respect and credibility. You can start with admitting you either took things out of context or misread the article about the 0.001% of malware downloads. You choice. I promise not to rub it in if you are honest with me.
I apologize up front if this is offense. I am being frank and honest with you and have you grow as a person. No offense intended. The ball is in your court..
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
A counter suit is just another legal strategy by Samsung in an attempt to show that Apple wasn't clean, to try and show Apple also violated the law. Samsung has to deflect as much as possible because the bar is lower in civil court, all you have to do is prove by a preponderance of evidence.
It's simple, in a trial if the fact are on your side you stick to the fact, when they aren't you try to move as far away from the facts as possible which is what Samsung did by deflecting to Google and Android. Samsung put on a good defense to limit damages.
No, they are trolls (esp GG). If we are to use their logic, than guilt is yes/no, black/white. Therefore it doesn't matter if a poster is saying nothing but "Apple sucks balls" or is constructing arguments to explain why Apple isn't perfect.
There are worse trolls than the idiots who post nothing but garbage for a day or two until they get banned. They are the ones who are trolling, but are very careful not to say anything obnoxious or insult people and try to explain their position with details or links. The problem is their arguments are full of holes and are really only half-truths. But not because they "missed" something or made a "mistake" - it's 100% intentional. Their goal is to obscure the issues (troll), not to have any reasonable discussion.
For example, KDarling. How many times did I ask him to back up claims he made (such as being a touchscreen expert for "decades", a software engineer, or working for a large corporation that's deploying Android tablets by the thousands)? He finally left. Too bad some others can't take the hint.
I'm actually quite surprised you don't see this. It's happened so many times I've lost track.
I've actually found Gatorguy to be, if not always factual, to be at least a bit entertaining in his comments. Unlike some of the other trolls he's one I don't mind too much.
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
A counter suit is just another legal strategy by Samsung in an attempt to show that Apple wasn't clean, to try and show Apple also violated the law. Samsung has to deflect as much as possible because the bar is lower in civil court, all you have to do is prove by a preponderance of evidence.
It's simple, in a trial if the fact are on your side you stick to the fact, when they aren't you try to move as far away from the facts as possible which is what Samsung did by deflecting to Google and Android. Samsung put on a good defense to limit damages.
too funny.. I see you are practicing exactly what assert in your last paragraph. Touche and a hat tip to you.
When I am wrong, I admit it. and say sorry, I was wrong. Give it a try. You don't have to be right all the time. You can start with admitting you either took things out of context or misread the article about the 0.001% of malware downloads. You choice. I promise not to rub it in if you are honest with me.
I apologize up front if this is offense. I am being frank and honest with you and have you grow as a person. No offense intended. The ball is in your court..
I'm not aware of either one. and I even took the time to re-read the article, linked again in my previous post. And yes I've been wrong a few times here and have been exceptionally quick IMHO to admit as much as soon as it's pointed out to me. I generally even thank the poster for the correction. It saves a lot of accusations and arguments just to admit to it. Even thanked Mr Eric frecently for his mention I was looking at an older article on Microsoft indemnity and he had a better more recent one. Told Soli a few days back thanks for correcting me on Apple partners. There's no shame in making a mistake.
And thanks for the change in tone. Peace back at'cha. We're good.
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
To be fair, it's only 750x.
lol, talk about horse shoes and hand grenades batman.
Please show us where the terms "patent" or "intellectual property" appear in the U.S. constitution.
EDIT: Yes, I know about "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." But it's up to Congress and SCOTUS to determine how that is enacted. So you do not have to "change the constitution" to effect change.
Comments
No sir I don't think we agreed on that at all. Which of my comments about the articles statistics was taken out-of-context to be purposely misleading? I think you should review that thread again. You should probably re-read the source article too.
http://qz.com/131436/contrary-to-what-youve-heard-android-is-almost-impenetrable-to-malware/
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
remember you link about the Android malware only amounting to 0.0001% of downloads.
recall we concluded that 0.0001% figure in the article was actually the amount of people who choose to do nothing after being warned by Google that they detected malware on their devices. Do you agree that your claim that only 0.0001% of Android downloads have malware was purposely taken out of context?
Yes I do. Which of my comments about the articles statistics was taken out-of-context to be misleading? I think you should review that thread again.
oh GG, you are amazing. LOL.
I am happy that it ended SOON!
But WORLD, be aware... still, this will not stop SAMSUNG copying !!!
Cant wait for their coming event. --- Ahead of Apple!
ended SOON? It's just the beginning..
Well, you could just make stuff up to accuse another member of and be done with it I suppose It was your claim of dishonesty on my part, If you can't back that up. . .
How is what they asked for in any way relevant to the decision the jury handed down? Apple was awarded 782x more than Samsung and you are trying to say they are equally guilty. I think your math is way more wrong than you're grasping at trying to say mine is. (It is becoming apparent that you know you are wrong and really are running out of legs to stand on in the argument. Is Samsung paying you to come on here and defend them in any way possible?)
An interesting argument, but I think it is exactly what Samsung was looking for in their countersuit. Guilt is binary. You are either guilty of infringing or you are not. Samsung was found guilty of infringing on Apple's patents. Apple was found guilty of infringing on Samsung's patents. They are both guilty of patent infringement. That is what Samsung wanted to establish.
Samsung didn't add a $6 million countersuit because they are worried about $6 million in a $2.2 billion suit. Without the countersuit the whole focus would have been along the lines of "Samsung is GUILTY, therefore they must pay what we are asking- 2.2 billion!"
The suit changed the argument from that to- well Samsung is GUILTY and Apple is also GUILTY. Do they each owe each other $2.2 billion because they are both GUILTY? No. The patents have a worth, and that worth needs to be determined.
Both sides stole from each other. Samsung stole property with higher value and so had to pay higher damages.
Forcing the jury to deliberate *value* instead of just INNOCENCE or GUILT was the primary purpose. I think the real hope from Samsung was that Apple would dispute the validity of Samsung's patents in which case Samsung would have gone to town on Apple's patents. They would have been in the tremendous position of Apple's own lawyers arguing that the patent process isn't exhaustive or infallible. Fortunately for Apple their lawyers are smarter than that- but without disputing the patents it did open the door to the lesser evil of having to allow Apple's infringement to be established.
In the end I think you can choose to look at the verdict alot like the iPhone 5c.
You can take the 'Wall Street' approach and consider the verdict a failure. Making $199,000,000 is a big letdown when you are projecting to make $2,200,000,000.
Or you can take the DED approach and consider it a huge win. $199,000,000 stomps the competition's amount into the ground by a factor of 782 times, therefore its a huge success.
Personally I think the decision is pretty fair. Samsung is guilty and has to pay a pretty sizeable chunk of dough. Slide to unlock is pretty nifty, but not worth 10% of a phone's price (or even 1%).
You're a smart guy. So is Eric. Of course you should be reading them if you have doubts. That's why they are there.
thanks for the complement. Actually the difference between you and I is that I am fully aware that there are plenty of people smarter than I. When I am wrong, I am quick to admit it here and don't try to take things out of context, split hairs or attempt to weasel my way in some hope into winning some pointless debate. I don't try to play dummy, holding an ace in by back pocket, trying to lure people in traps either. When I am wrong, I admit it. and say sorry, I was wrong. Give it a try. You don't have to be right all the time. Just honest. IMHO, you would get a lot more respect and credibility. You can start with admitting you either took things out of context or misread the article about the 0.001% of malware downloads. You choice. I promise not to rub it in if you are honest with me.
I apologize up front if this is offense. I am being frank and honest with you and have you grow as a person. No offense intended. The ball is in your court..
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
A counter suit is just another legal strategy by Samsung in an attempt to show that Apple wasn't clean, to try and show Apple also violated the law. Samsung has to deflect as much as possible because the bar is lower in civil court, all you have to do is prove by a preponderance of evidence.
It's simple, in a trial if the fact are on your side you stick to the fact, when they aren't you try to move as far away from the facts as possible which is what Samsung did by deflecting to Google and Android. Samsung put on a good defense to limit damages.
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
A counter suit is just another legal strategy by Samsung in an attempt to show that Apple wasn't clean, to try and show Apple also violated the law. Samsung has to deflect as much as possible because the bar is lower in civil court, all you have to do is prove by a preponderance of evidence.
It's simple, in a trial if the fact are on your side you stick to the fact, when they aren't you try to move as far away from the facts as possible which is what Samsung did by deflecting to Google and Android. Samsung put on a good defense to limit damages.
too funny.. I see you are practicing exactly what assert in your last paragraph. Touche and a hat tip to you.
I'm not aware of either one. and I even took the time to re-read the article, linked again in my previous post. And yes I've been wrong a few times here and have been exceptionally quick IMHO to admit as much as soon as it's pointed out to me. I generally even thank the poster for the correction. It saves a lot of accusations and arguments just to admit to it. Even thanked Mr Eric frecently for his mention I was looking at an older article on Microsoft indemnity and he had a better more recent one. Told Soli a few days back thanks for correcting me on Apple partners. There's no shame in making a mistake.
And thanks for the change in tone. Peace back at'cha. We're good.
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
To be fair, it's only 750x.
not exactly classy to gloat. better to keep it quiet and take the high road, don't you think?
I think it best that you replace your dictionary.
Just to put things into perspective, even thought it's nowhere what they asked for, Apple got awarded ~ 1000x what samsung did.. on a pie chart, Samsung's slice would not even be visible.
To be fair, it's only 750x.
lol, talk about horse shoes and hand grenades batman.
What's the America Invents Act?
not exactly classy to gloat. better to keep it quiet and take the high road, don't you think?
I think it best that you replace your dictionary.
like I said. classy.
like I said. classy.
At least I don't go accusing people of things and then not back it up with proof.
(like your above comment for example)
There's no shame in making a mistake.
And thanks for the change in tone. Peace back at'cha. We're good.
yes.. it felt like I was starting to be a bit too offense. sorry about that.
glad we are aligned and we both know who we are dealing with on both sides.